from Hacker News

TTIP Leaks

by Hjugo on 5/2/16, 9:28 AM with 251 comments

  • by tommyman on 5/2/16, 10:24 AM

    So business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in the US side of negotiations (far more than any public interest groups).

    Then on the EU side, business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in negotiations to the detriment of all public groups.

    So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe.

    This is a takeover attempt through the backdoor.

  • by rkrzr on 5/2/16, 11:49 AM

    This leak once again shows the importance of transparency in negotiations that will impact the lives of 800 million people (and the rest of the world indirectly).

    If TTIP were ratified, it would be out of the control of any subsequently elected democratic governments as it would be part of international law.

    Regardless what you think of TTIP it seems like the very least to ask is that a contract of such importance is discussed in the open where the public can have a voice in their own future.

  • by callcallcall on 5/2/16, 2:31 PM

    Instead of complaining into the echo chamber of comments, do something actionable and call your representatives, it takes 2 minutes. Cynics will say that calling has no value but they forget how we beat SOPA in 2012 and protected Net Neutrality in 2014

    Call your Reps: http://TryVoices.com (it takes 2 minutes)

  • by elcapitan on 5/2/16, 10:46 AM

    I hope somebody who speaks Lawyerish will create a human-readable, per-paragraph annotated version of this (rather than the sensationalist editorial things that the media will publish).

  • by msvan on 5/2/16, 12:23 PM

    Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Trade, on the documents:

    > First of all, and contrary to what many seem to believe, so-called "consolidated texts" in a trade negotiation are not the same thing as an outcome. They reflect each side's negotiating position, nothing else. [...] In that sense, many of today's alarmist headlines are a storm in a teacup. [...] No EU trade agreement will ever lower our level of protection of consumers, or food safety, or of the environment. Trade agreements will not change our laws on GMOs, or how to produce safe beef, or how to protect the environment.

    http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/blog/nego...

  • by creshal on 5/2/16, 9:49 AM

    Not that it's still not all documents, and already out of date:

    > The documents that Greenpeace Netherlands has released about half of the draft text as of April 2016, prior to the start of the 13th round of TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US (New York, 25-29 April 2016). As far as we know the final document will consist of 25 to 30 chapters and many extensive annexes. The EU Commission published an overview stating that they have now 17 consolidated texts. This means the documents released by Greenpeace netherlands encompass 3/4 of the existing consolidated texts. Consolidated texts are those where the EU and US positions on issues are shown side by side. This step in the negotiation process allows us to see the areas where the EU and US are close to agreement, and where compromises and concessions would still need to be made. Of the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands, in total 248 pages, 13 chapters offer for the first time the position of the US.

    So politics will probably pull the "your complaints are all addressed in the still secret parts / were changed after the leak, we pinky-swear" card.

  • by jychang on 5/2/16, 9:57 AM

    Here's the preview for relevant section for the TTRIP with regards to the Internet:

    http://www.ttip-leaks.org/agamemnon/doc4.pdf

    The actual preview function seems to be broken, it only opens in a tiny iframe.

  • by riffraff on 5/2/16, 10:15 AM

    I don't understand this FAQ:

    > None of the chapters we have seen reference the General Exceptions rule. This nearly 70-year-old rule enshrined in the GATT agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), allows nations to regulate trade “to protect human, animal and plant life or health" or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources" [1].

    as point 2 in agriculture states

    > In this regard, nothing in this Agreement will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity that each side deems appropriate.

  • by r0h1n on 5/2/16, 9:53 AM

    The #2 and #3 stories are both links to ttip-leaks.org. The only difference b/w them seems to be the presence of a "www" in one case. Doesn't HN dupe detection handle something as basic?

  • by mangeletti on 5/2/16, 1:23 PM

    There is little excuse[1] for such a website to not employ TSL encryption of all traffic.

    I can't even imagine the size of the TLA database containing <"evil" page visited>: <ip of visitor> records at this point.

    1. https://letsencrypt.org/

  • by jessup on 5/2/16, 3:27 PM

    "The original text has been typed again and obvious spelling and grammar errors, possibly put there deliberately as markers to identify the origin in case of a leak, have been removed. Other apparent textual or formatting-related markers were removed as well. None of these adjustments have altered the content of the text in any way."

    This statement is leading me to rethink my conception of how steganography might be applied In The Real World.

  • by alva on 5/2/16, 3:29 PM

    Respect to Greenpeace for sourcing and distributing these. They tend to get a good amount of news coverage. The more organisations that get involved in this, the more pressure we can place on our respective governments.

  • by woodpanel on 5/2/16, 11:52 PM

    The Europeans are socialists. In the sense that (anglo-saxons aside) they like to socialize access to justice, thus the codefied law system. Having to switch to abitral courts which decisions cascade into laws and juresprudence, comes in detrimental to european legal cultures. TTIP is thus even more disliked than the European Union itself is, with its regulations and directives.

  • by alex20 on 5/2/16, 7:18 PM

    i get the idea but it's not true. the tables enumerating the tariffs and such on different classes of products alone can take thousands of pages, and there generally isn't anything so malicious in there. they get incredibly specific. for example in the section of the TPP relating to Chile, there are three subcategories of "articles for Christmas festivities." Another example of how specific they get is a class "Endless transmission belts of trapezoidal cross-section, of an outside circumference exceeding 60cm but not exceeding 180cm"

    edit: I should clarify that it's a tariff elimination schedule, so it's thousands of pages describing exactly how quickly the tariffs drop to 0. Most lines of the table are "Year 1: 0%." As to why some products have a more gradual decline over a few years, I don't know, probably some special interest influence, true. A small change in tariffs can mean life or death to certain businesses.

  • by andrei_says_ on 5/2/16, 6:35 PM

    Can we make it clear that we will not reelect any politician who supports this?

  • by known on 5/2/16, 3:09 PM

  • by randyrand on 5/2/16, 11:57 PM

    My reading of this situation so far is that the TTIP is to increase free trade?

    To me that's a good thing....